Chialingosaurus

Phylogeny: Dinosauria > Ornithischia > Genasauria > Thyreophora > Thyreophoroidea > Eurypoda > Stegosauria > Stegosauridae > Stegosaurinae (?)

Overview: In the 1950’s, Chinese researchers discovered the fossilized remains of a stegosaur near the Jialing River, flowing through China’s Sichuan Province. Recovered bones included vertebrae, a portion of the shoulder, part of the limbs, and some spiked osteoderms. Yang Zhongjian, then more commonly known as C. C. Young, was China’s foremost dinosaur expert at the time. He studied the find, determining it represented a new genus and species – Chialingosaurus. The animal’s name was chosen in reference to the aforementioned river, albeit using a different form of transliteration. In his publication, Yang would classify Chialingosaurus as a close relative of Stegosaurus itself, within the family Stegosauridae. Later, it was commonly seen as a more basal stegosaur, but some recent studies have again found support for it being a derived stegosaur, possibly close to Kentrosaurus. It is often restored in a fashion similar to said genus, which lived in what is now East Africa.

All fossils found so far from Chialingosaurus were recovered from the upper layers of China’s famous Shaximiao Formation. Chialingosaurus may’ve coexisted with other stegosaur genera, including the likes of Tuojiangosaurus and Chungkingosaurus, as well as other dinosaurs like Mamenchisaurus or Yangchuanosaurus. The latter was a large apex predator that probably preyed on this animal. The long spines on this animal’s back and tail may’ve been used for both defense and display. There are some restorations that depict it with shoulder spines, which many of its kin possessed, but we can’t be sure if Chialingosaurus had them as well. So far, Chialingosaurus is only known from the remains of juvenile specimens. There are some paleontologists who suggest Chialingosaurus may actually be based on the fossils of another stegosaur genus, or that its bones lack enough distinctive traits to make it a valid taxon. Other studies, however, continue to find support for its validity.